Re: OT newsgroup sensitivity (was: Great SWT Program)
"Mike Schilling" wrote:
There were no nasty implications by Arne.
Yes, there were. He is trying to imply that I'm an idiot.
Rather, that you [insult deleted]
Mike Schilling wrote:
Note that the deleted insult was "is not omniscient".
At least now we know the nature of the delusion.
Actually, that's not word-for-word what the deleted "insult" was, but you
rendered them equivalent via a syllogism that goes something like this:
What you actually said was:
Rather, that you were mistaken about a bit of largely-obsolete trivia.
Not the same thing.
All people are not omniscient.
Equivalently, all people are mistaken about something sometimes.
To be "mistaken about a bit of largely-obsolete trivia" is a manifestation of
Therefore to label someone "mistaken about a bit of largely-obsolete trivia"
is equivalent to averring that a person is not omniscient, a true statement by
Some people are not idiots.
The set of idiots does not equal the set of people who are not omniscient.
Therefore to label someone not omniscient is not equivalent to labeling
someone an idiot.
The "insult" deleted is therefore equivalent to a statement that a person is
not omniscient, true by postulate, and that a particular utterance evidences
Just to be precise.
The controversy seems twofold: whether the utterance in question is mistaken,
and therefore demonstrative of non-omniscience, and whether to challenge the
factual truth of a statement insults by virtue of the assertion that it is
evidence of non-omniscience, stipulating that every person is non-omniscient.
I assert that there is evidence that a technical newsgroup has as part of its
social contract the permission to challenge the factuality of any assertion
proffered herein, from which one may conclude that in context mere factual
contradiction is /prima facie/ not an offense to the prevailing mores, and
that posters must expect to receive assertions of factual contradiction from
time to time.
One has the choice never to assert a fact or to ignore assertions of
contradiction if one is not in agreement with the prevailing social contract
of a community such as this. To act otherwise is also a choice. In
particular, there is no presumption of coercive circumstance to participate in